Hi, On 10/14/2015 09:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote: > This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a > boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on > the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two > different things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? > since the highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap > the real boundary, so if the highway is changed for any reason, it will > modify the boundary along with it.
This is not automatically wrong. It is possible that boundaries are actually defined by highways or other features (rivers, for example). > So what's the valid thing to do here? You'd have to research how the boundary is defined. If there is some sort of legal definition that goes "the boundary has the following geometry: from lat/lon A to lat/lon B to lat/lon C...", independent of the river or highway, then it makes sense to have two different geometries. But if the legal definition goes "the municipality of X extends until the middle of the river Y" then it would be wrong to have two different geometries in OSM. (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for example having two ways share the same nodes, or putting the river/highway into the boundary relation. The latter seems more commonly used but both are valid.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
